No. 28642-4-IIThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two.
Filed: May 28, 2003 DO NOT CITE. SEE RAP 10.4(h). UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of Clallam County Docket No: 02-8-00055-4 Judgment or order under review Date filed: 04/01/2002
Counsel for Appellant(s), Sherryl A. Jones, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 1869, Port Townsend, WA 98368-0058.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Mark Burns Nichols, Attorney at Law, 5126 N.E.32nd St, Seattle, WA 98105-4907.
MORGAN, J.
J.M. appeals her juvenile court adjudication for use of drug paraphernalia. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the State,[1] we affirm. On November 1, 2001, J.M. was behind a Boys and Girls’ Club with three other girls and two boys. At least the four girls lighted and smoked green vegetable material contained in a pop can. Three of the girls, including J.M. herself, told one of the boys that the green vegetable material was marijuana. The fourth girl later testified that she and the others all smoked it, and that it was marijuana. When the police arrived, an officer looked at it, smelled it, and, based on her training and experience, thought it was marijuana. The boy, the fourth girl, and the officer testified at trial. J.M. argues that the evidence was insufficient to show she was using the pop can as drug paraphernalia because it was insufficient to show the pop can contained marijuana. She claims, in essence, that testimony from the boy, the fourth girl, and the officer could not have been sufficient to prove the nature of the substance.
The question is whether a rational trier of fact, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, `could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’[2] A witness with knowledge may identify a substance, whether the knowledge was acquired through education or experience.[3] As the Supreme Court has said, ‘[t]he introduction of a chemical analysis of a suspected controlled substance is not essential to conviction even in a criminal trial proceeding; lay testimony and circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to establish the identity of the substance.’[4] In this case, six teenagers went behind a building. They put green material into a pop can, lighted it, and began smoking it. J.M. herself said at the time that the material was marijuana. Two other girls said at the time that the material was marijuana. A fourth girl said at trial that she had smoked some of it, and it was marijuana. A trained police officer looked at it, smelled it, and said it was marijuana. Even in the absence of a chemical analysis, this evidence was sufficient for the trial court to find that the material was marijuana.
The foregoing analysis being dispositive, we do not reach whether the lab report met the requirements of CrR 613(b) or was supported by an adequate chain of custody. Affirmed.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.
QUINN-BRINTNALL, A.C.J. and BRIDGEWATER, J., concur.
(1970) (evidence insufficient under particular circumstances); State v. Potts, 93 Wn. App. 82, 87, 969 P.2d 494 (1998) (same); Hutton, 7 Wn. App. at 730-31 (same).